Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50819/2024bail rejected

Birendra Yadav @ Giri Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-20Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50819 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2021 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Birendra Yadav @ Giri Yadav, Son of Asheshar Yadav, R/o vill- Madhuban, Bhagwanpur, P.S -Nautan, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Balgovind Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 101 of 2021 dated 04.03.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Balgovind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant matter relates to an offence of loot of a tractor allegedly committed by ten unknown persons from the possession of the informant and during investigation the name of this petitioner surfaced in the statement of coaccused Nared Yadav which has no evidentiary value, though the petitioner has criminal antecedent of seven cases but he is on bail in all the said cases.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50819 of 2024(2) dt.20-07-2024 2/2

4. Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

5. Heard both the sides. Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the FIR was registered against unknown persons but as per the above submission, the name of this petitioner surfaced in the statement of co-accused Nared Yadav and the investigation is still pending against this petitioner who has criminal antecedents of seven cases, so, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T